F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[t68]

I doubt it. The F-35C’s bigger wing is so it can fly slower and land on a carrier. While it uses the bigger wing to carry a lot more fuel it also causes a lot more drag and therefore needs to burn more fuel to fly the same distance as the F-35A. The F-35 Block III is already a SEAD/DEAD platform far more capable than any Wild Weasel or F-16CJs.

While a two seat version (think stealth Growler) and range enhancements are possible they will likely be variants of the F-35A if land based. Conformal fuel carriage is more likely than wing extension for extra range. Or even the over wing bags that Lockheed were talking about for the FB-22. If they wanted a drastic increase in range (5-6 hours on internal fuel) and internal weapons then the F-35 could go through the same changes as the FB-22. Fuselage stretch for a second seat and more tankage, delta wing for more fuel while keeping drag down and weapons panniers for more internal weapons.



.

In the future how likely do you think this could happen, while not for the reasons solely based on SEAD operations, but more of a medium bomber?

It does not look like the FB-22 is going to get up and if it did is part of the F-22 family likely not for export. What you have proposed for the F-35 is it worth modifying into a combination of medium bomber or SEAD aircraft once F35 in variation are up a running.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In the future how likely do you think this could happen, while not for the reasons solely based on SEAD operations, but more of a medium bomber?

Well the F-35 is never going to be turned into a medium bomber (an obsolete term anyway) b a two seat F-35 with more endurance would fit the role of a complex target, persistence strike fighter. In other words optimised for the current mission of close air support and interdiction against asymmetric enemies. It would also have improved capability for other complex strike missions like SEAD/DEAD and hunter/killer strike.

How likely is it? Well there is a need and in the late 2010s and early 2020s such a second generation F-35 may be seen as an easier step than the FA-XX, NGAD type concepts.

It does not look like the FB-22 is going to get up and if it did is part of the F-22 family likely not for export. What you have proposed for the F-35 is it worth modifying into a combination of medium bomber or SEAD aircraft once F35 in variation are up a running.

The FB-22 was a concept that was given the red light back in 2004/05ish. In the place of its class of aircraft: rapid theatre strike – of which is was the third best and last concept offered – USAF chose the long range bomber concept which is in concept development at the moment. So no there will never be a FB-22 and that has been the case for the past 6-7 years.

 

[LGB]

It would be extremely useful having a stretched twin seat F-35 for any number of reasons. The question is whether the F-135/136 have enough growth to provide enough power? A secondary consideration is the electrical generation capacity, especially given a single engine?

It's not clear that a modified F-35 would fill the NGAD (F/A-XX) requirements nor is it clear that having LM get another tactical air program is good for the long term health of the defense base. One might suggest this one won't be going to LM.

A twin seat stretched F-22 would have been extremely useful for strike, ew, etc. Not having a clear requirement for this aircraft was another reason the F-22 was cut early. Not having a 5th gen escort jammer is going to be problematic for a while. Perhaps one will emerge eventually from the NGAD or F-22 follow on?

Well the F-35 is never going to be turned into a medium bomber (an obsolete term anyway) b a two seat F-35 with more endurance would fit the role of a complex target, persistence strike fighter. In other words optimised for the current mission of close air support and interdiction against asymmetric enemies. It would also have improved capability for other complex strike missions like SEAD/DEAD and hunter/killer strike.

How likely is it? Well there is a need and in the late 2010s and early 2020s such a second generation F-35 may be seen as an easier step than the FA-XX, NGAD type concepts.



The FB-22 was a concept that was given the red light back in 2004/05ish. In the place of its class of aircraft: rapid theatre strike – of which is was the third best and last concept offered – USAF chose the long range bomber concept which is in concept development at the moment. So no there will never be a FB-22 and that has been the case for the past 6-7 years.

 

[Swampfox157]

Well the F-35 is never going to be turned into a medium bomber (an obsolete term anyway) b a two seat F-35 with more endurance would fit the role of a complex target, persistence strike fighter. In other words optimised for the current mission of close air support and interdiction against asymmetric enemies. It would also have improved capability for other complex strike missions like SEAD/DEAD and hunter/killer strike.

How likely is it? Well there is a need and in the late 2010s and early 2020s such a second generation F-35 may be seen as an easier step than the FA-XX, NGAD type concepts.



The FB-22 was a concept that was given the red light back in 2004/05ish. In the place of its class of aircraft: rapid theatre strike – of which is was the third best and last concept offered – USAF chose the long range bomber concept which is in concept development at the moment. So no there will never be a FB-22 and that has been the case for the past 6-7 years.

Are you anticipating this to be a more-or-less 1:1 replacement for the F-15E? If there's one replacement for the Beagle that I wouldn't mind, it would have to be an improved aircraft with similar capabilities.

 

[Hoffy]

Ejector seat trials

Great footage here;

Video: F-35 stealth fighter jet undergoes ejector seat trials - Telegraph

A good job for a dummy no doubt. Interesting to note that the tests were also conducted in France according to the article.
Test performed at 600mph - so approximately 965km per hour.
Painful , but at least you'd be alive.

 

[Grand Danois]

So much for the JSF partners being jittery...

Norway about to sign up for purchase of four F-35A for delivery 2016.

Vil kjøpe fire F-35 treningsfly - regjeringen.no

* to be used as trainers, stationed in the US
* acquisition cost for four F-35 is NOK 3.2 B.
* plus NOK 1.2 B for initial logistics, operations the first years
* plus NOK 0.4 B to cover uncertainty factors (my note: would primarily be to cover exchange rate fluctuactions, as per 2008 report, the updated exchange rate which is worked with is 6.45 NOK to the USD, not the current rate).
* as per dec 2010 total cost for for acquisition of 56 F-35A has increased 2.5% since type selection 2008 due to US stretching of the production schedule: http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/16247101/F-35-anskaffelse_kostnadsbilde-oppdatert.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

For a two seat striker, I would have thought the F-35 would be the best platform to build that off given that the F-35B ducting/fan can be removed and second canopy can be made up to allow a 2nd seat.

But I find that unlikely, there was talk about placing an electrical generator and capacitors in that space and making use of extremely powerful ECM and direct energy weapons.

 

[SpudmanWP]

A second seat would loose too much fuel for a limited benefit (just look at the F-35's range for example). With advanced high-speed datalinks, the F-35 can have "virtual" back-seaters whenever they are needed. The EODAS gives them better SA than the Mk1 Eyeball anyhow.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The EODAS gives them better SA than the Mk1 Eyeball anyhow.

Not literally so. the backseater does provide a whole pile of other advantages, and the legals aren't that ready to have automation down to that level for final prosecution decisions.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "virtual backseater" (VBack). I meant hat there could be several people in a bunker thousands of miles away helping execute the mission. The VBacks could help to coordinate attacks in realtime, ID & analyze targets, etc. Basically they could do what a backseater does now without taking up fuel, space, or risking an extra life. Add to that the fact that you could have multiple VBacks and you get the idea that the pilot will have all the help he needs.

 

[LGB]

That could be useful but there are issues of shared situational awareness and information overload. The pilot already has the rest of his unit to deal with, AWACS in his ear, and a wealth of information from all the new sensors however well presented on his display(s). It's also a question of workload.

A 2nd seat helps share the workload and with time the two work as a team. It's not quite the same as some guy monitoring your sensors some distance away and there's no issue of losing comms.

There are some missions one really does need a crew vs simply a pilot. The single engine electrical generation capacity aside simply hanging some jamming pods on the F-35 is not going to grant the same level of capability as an EA-6B or EA-18G with one pilot trying to manage the whole workload. All weather strike also is better served with a back seat. Not every mission is simply dropping pre coordinated JDAMs.

That said I tend to agree we're not going to see a twin seat F-35 anytime soon however useful. Longer term the USN NGAD (F/A-XX) will be a twin seat and will probably replace the EA-18G eventually. Be interesting to see if long term the USAF sees a requirement for a twin seat EW/EA aircraft and whether the F-22 follow on is that aircraft or they do a stretch version of the F-35?

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "virtual backseater" (VBack). I meant hat there could be several people in a bunker thousands of miles away helping execute the mission. The VBacks could help to coordinate attacks in realtime, ID & analyze targets, etc. Basically they could do what a backseater does now without taking up fuel, space, or risking an extra life. Add to that the fact that you could have multiple VBacks and you get the idea that the pilot will have all the help he needs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "virtual backseater" (VBack). I meant hat there could be several people in a bunker thousands of miles away helping execute the mission. The VBacks could help to coordinate attacks in realtime, ID & analyze targets, etc. Basically they could do what a backseater does now without taking up fuel, space, or risking an extra life. Add to that the fact that you could have multiple VBacks and you get the idea that the pilot will have all the help he needs.

Your vback does not have the situational appreciation - let alone awareness of what it happening.

in fact the term situational awareness is being replaced at the operating picture level by "situational appreciation"

they are subtle but vast differences.

its a significant mistake and over reach to think that 20 people around a set of screens can provide the same level of immediacy when the pilot needs to make a tactical decision. they can help, but ultiumately I would hazard a guess that if it was a toss up between pilot, backseater, tac picture or pilot, vback then they'd go for the backseater.

its certainly what the Growler and Prowler pilots think....

 

[johnnie1graham]

Thanks for sharing the interesting story. Keep updating.

 

[StingrayOZ]

its a significant mistake and over reach to think that 20 people around a set of screens can provide the same level of immediacy when the pilot needs to make a tactical decision. they can help, but ultiumately I would hazard a guess that if it was a toss up between pilot, backseater, tac picture or pilot, vback then they'd go for the backseater.

I suppose if it could be done by a vback, then you might as well be flying a uav.

The F-35 already has significant electrical capability, so there is space for an additional pilot. Given the number of sensors of an F-35, its going to be very different being on a F-35 and sitting 1000's of km away on a fairly fat but laggy pipe only getting a fraction of the detail the pilot is able to access.

While technology is moving forward, its still not the same as someone being there.

You would have to give up some range, proberly not as much as a F-35B tho.

 

[gf0012-aust]

................. on a fairly fat but laggy pipe only getting a fraction of the detail the pilot is able to access.

While technology is moving forward, its still not the same as someone being there.

You would have to give up some range, proberly not as much as a F-35B tho.

the "laggy pipe" is not a big a deal as you would think. TADL/feeds are small packets

the issue since 1999 has not been about getting the data to the shooter, but how not to overload them with so much data that it overwhelms them

its data relevance which is the issue, not about getting them data to act on

 

[Volkodav]

the "laggy pipe" is not a big a deal as you would think. TADL/feeds are small packets

the issue since 1999 has not been about getting the data to the shooter, but how not to overload them with so much data that it overwhelms them

its data relevance which is the issue, not about getting them data to act on

So in a nutshell two crew makes sense and ideally a strike package should beable to share and task packets of info among the back seaters to enable the package as a whole to do more. i.e. the capability of the whole should be greater than the sum of its parts as each back seater concentrates on a specific part of the picture.

 

[Swampfox157]

So in a nutshell two crew makes sense and ideally a strike package should beable to share and task packets of info among the back seaters to enable the package as a whole to do more. i.e. the capability of the whole should be greater than the sum of its parts as each back seater concentrates on a specific part of the picture.

EXACTLY. The pilot can focus on flying the aircraft and evasive maneuvers, while the WSO can manage air-to-ground tasks and potentially tactical coordination.

 

[SpudmanWP]

F-35B Achieves First Push-Button Landing

From the Airforce-Magazine.com

Just Push "Auto-Land": A Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing test aircraft last week achieved an impressive milestone, according to Warren Boley, Pratt & Whitney military engines president. "For the first time," Boley said in an interview, "a pilot pushed a button and the [air]plane landed autonomously." Boley joked that the pilot could fold his hands behind his head or "read the paper" while the airplane safely settled down to a vertical landing from hover. The flight was the 74th vertical landing of the F-35 test program, and the fact that the Marine Corps was willing to allow the test indicated high confidence in the airplane and its Pratt-supplied F135 engine, Boley told the Daily Report April 8. —John A. Tirpak

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sounds like pilots won't have to be focused to much, all they need its a push to take off and a push to engage and any old money could fly these crates.

Wonder if they can land on the back of a frigate at sea?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sounds like pilots won't have to be focused to much, all they need its a push to take off and a push to engage and any old money could fly these crates.

Wonder if they can land on the back of a frigate at sea?

In an emergency, maybe. I wouldn't like to bet on it though...